In the introductory paragraphs of The Dream of Cheap Nuclear Power Is Over,
author Smith speaks about fantasies offuturistic and complicated nuclear power plants and how France and
Finland are becoming better at storing spent fuel. However, he seems to have
become disenthralled, partly because of the 2011 Fukushima accident. The cost
of the subsequent evacuation and the progress of solar are considerations for
Smith to convince himself that "a
nuclear world won't come true anytime soon." Could anyone explain to
me why the title is so definitive? Especially because the author concludes that
this paradigm may not be true if certain conditions are met i.e. nuclear fusion & small cheap fission
reactors.

I agree with Smith that nuclear energy is a far
better option over fossil fuels, especially because it causes no detrimental
effects to health and environment. So far so good.

Smith, however, decides to base his conclusion
on a metric at which nuclear energy goes off on a tangent compared to fracking
and solar power, namely CAPEX (Capital Expenditure). CAPEX is what it costs to
build something like a fracking well or a solar power plant or a nuclear power
plant. CAPEX however should be placed in a different context, and this is
something practically everyone does before investing in said energy source. The
question is : "How long can we reliably expect to profit from this
investment?"

A fracking well lasts as long until it
depletes; A solar power plant will be viable for Roughly 25 to 30 years; and we
may contrast this with 60 to 80 years for a nuclear power plant.

Suppose that we're still on the low end of the
spectrum in terms of longevity and we spend roughly $2.4 billion on 550 Megawatt
similar to the Topaz PV plant in California. Note that we have to account for
stranded assets in the form of capacity factor. Solar has a capacity factor of
roughly 25.8% according to the EIA. If we account for capacity factor and a
lifespan of 25 years we get the following figures :$676.5 thousand per effective Megawatt per year.

Let's compare this to the $9 billion nuclear
power station. From the documentation shared by Smith we may account for a
2,000 Megawatt reactor facility. The
capacity of nuclear, according to the EIA, is roughly 92.3%. This gives us the
following figure for a 60 year lifespan : $81.3 thousand per effective Megawatt
per year.

Now we have uncovered the actual capital costs
of solar and nuclear. The discrepancy is telling. Solar is 8 times more
expensive than nuclear energy in terms of capital costs. If we have to account
for the backup which is required by solar we will probably end up in the double
digits if a discrepancy between nuclear and solar is concerned. Also note that
even if we would double Solar's longevity we would still reach $338.3 thousand
per effective Megawatt per year. This means that this argument comes down to
efficiency, and in terms of efficiency, nothing beats nuclear energy.

True costs are measured in Levelized Cost of
electricity or LCOE. And LCOE comprises all costs associated to a plant,
including decommissioning costs. LCOE is pretty much in flux. As of yet LCOE
for solar, and wind are on par with nuclear. But this depends entirely on where
the technology has been implemented.

There are two important metrics which are
omitted and should be considered. The first being the ancillary benefits of
nuclear in terms of the production of essential isotopes for medical and safety
purposes. The second being the input of materials required per unit of energy
produced. From my own analyses it turns out that nuclear, again, is vastly
superior to any other power source when it comes to putting materials to
effective use, which means that we are also minimizing the amount of materials
required.

As it stands, the argument that Nuclear's capital
costs are "gargantuan" is moot, as it has to be put into the correct
context. In terms of CAPEX you buy more bang for your buck when you invest in
nuclear rather than solar, and the disparity is quite large.

It is my contention, in contrast to Smith's,
that nuclear energy is the power of tomorrow. Consider for instance
Terrestrial Energy's licensing plans for a 400 MWth liquid fuel reactor, called
the IMSR400, which can be used for industrial heat and electricity. And this is
something solar cannot do, it cannot cogenerate, or provide the essential heat
required for heavy industrial processes, which would otherwise be fuelled with
gas and coal. There are dozens of startups just like Terrestrial Energy which
are edging closer to commercializing their designs, most notably Bill Gates's
Terrapower. And all of these startups aim to make nuclear significantly safer,
cheaper and easier to build than contemporary reactors upon which Smith's
argumentation rests. We may therefore conclude that the title should be "we may dream a little longer about cheap
nuclear power."

It is entirely possible that this mail has been sucked into the void of
e-mail filters, and therefore I will publish this letter on my blog as
well.

2 comments:

Thies is too kind to solar and wind, as is almost everybody else. The horrendous expense of "decommissioning" nuclear should be compared with the galacto-astronomical cost of restoring a moorland that has been covered with roads and bloody great concrete footings for wind turbines, AND had its original pH restored. If wind projects were required at the level of persnicketiness of the NRC to escrow for proper decommissioning, none would be built. Likewise, every gas turbine consumes 64 million tons of oxygen for every 16 million tons of methane burned. Ignoring the arguments about carbon dioxide, how does a gas turbine owner at decommissioning time restore the oxygen that we all need to breathe?

Pageviews so far

Reading recommendations

" We do have a scientific understanding of whywe're here and we therefore have to make up our own meaning to life. Wehave to stand up, look the world in the face, face up to the fact thatwe are not going to last forever, we have to make the most of the shorttime that we have on this planet, we have to make this planet as good as we possibly can and try to leave it a better place than we found it.